Prediction Markets

September 11, 2008

The Captain Is A Must-Read

Captain Ed has a must-read on public education, Barack Obama, and Sarah Palin.

FULL BLOGGER DISCLOSURE: I read the same piece as the Captain and did nothing with it. Color me green. Of course, that's why he's the Captain...

IN ONE SHORT (FOR ME) PHRASE (WITH A FOLLOW): Everything Barack Obama knows about public education he learned by working with an unrepentant terrorist and sending his kids to private school; Sarah Palin started in politics as a PTA mom. Hmm, maybe the community organizer could have tried organizing his own kids public school. Nahhh...

TrackBack

Comments

Yes, the contrast between Palin who began her public career with a PTA she joined to improve public education and Obama he blew away millions set aside for this purpose to no end (for the children) and then sends his kids to private school is telling. I said the same thing here yesterday.

Shoot, TM, if you read your own comments section you could have had links to non-performing schools within walking distance of BHO Manse. It's not as if they don't exist. Where do you think the Captain (and many others) get ideas?

13 ... Each class or course in comprehensive sex
14 education offered in any of grades K -6 through 12 shall
15 include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted
16 infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
17 of HIV.

The McCain camp is slowly drawing the Obama campaign and the media into the CAC trap. I get the feeling they are holding their fire until they think it will have the most impact, but they are laying the groundwork and getting the media to state on the record that Ayers and Obama were central to the CAC. Yesterday we have the NYT saying that Ayers was a key player in CAC, and today the WaPo saying Obama was part of CAC. The hammer will fall soon.

I envision a spot with Obama saying something about reforming education, and Bill Ayers saying education is the revolution ballanced with a Palin spot where she talks about how she knows public education from her PTA days and that she has sent all of her kids to public schools.

More from Ed: "Palin actually started her political career as a way to improve the education her children received. She started with the PTA, and kept succeeding until she became governor. In terms of “community organizing”, Palin succeeded where Obama retreated, and she made a real difference in her community and the lives of her children."

as we await the inevitable arrival of obama's apologists, take a quick look at this post on Jim treacher's site. I think it explains why so many of these trolls sound fake and why the points they make, while erroneous, are often quite 'clever.' :

Senator Obama's children attend the University of Chicago Laboratory School, a private K-12 institution that is one of the very best private schools in the country. If there's any school in the land that doesn't need organizing, it's that one.

Yesterday we have the NYT saying that Ayers was a key player in CAC, and today the WaPo saying Obama was part of CAC. The hammer will fall soon.

I wish I had that faith, Ranger.
If you read Howard Kurtz today, or visit Swampland, you see that reporters are mad mad mad. They say they are mad because McCain is ignoring them, making them cover stupid things (as if), or because Palin is such a fraud and readers don't get it.
We all know they are mad because they fear Obama might not win.

I think the NYT/WaPo treatment of CAC will hold our hands and explain to us how Obama worked hard, against all odds, and learned an important lesson while gaining experience. I suspect they've been holding out on reporting it at all until they'd figured out the proper context for it to be presented to the public.

Interesting Treacher post--Didnt he or aomeone note the very strong likelihood of astroturfing for Obama just the other day? I can't remember what it was but IIRC the plastic sod began around Sept 4 on that issue.

I think the NYT/WaPo treatment of CAC will hold our hands and explain to us how Obama worked hard, against all odds, and learned an important lesson while gaining experience. I suspect they've been holding out on reporting it at all until they'd figured out the proper context for it to be presented to the public.

Posted by: MayBee | September 11, 2008 at 11:20 AM

I don't think the point is to get the NYT or the WaPo do take on Obama. I think the point is to use the stories to support an ad. You put up a statement and then cite the NYT. Such as: William Ayers and Barack Obama worked together on education reform in Chicago (NYT, September 10th, 2008). Who is William Ayers? He's an unrepentant domestic terrorist who bombed the Pentagon and brags about it (NYT, September 11th, 2001). So, what did Barack Obama learn from William Ayers about education reform? Clip of Ayers with Hugo Chavez Education is Revolution! Are these really the kind of ideas we need in school reform in America? We need school reform that helps out children learn how to read and write, not become revolutionaries.

An example of the divide between "us" and "them"... Do y'all remember Eunice Stone, the GA lady who on 9-13 overheard 3 Muslim dudes from IL talking about bringing buildings down? Her teen son's reaction to the conversation at the adjoining booth was, "Mom, they're just messing with you" which she acknowledged could be true. She called the GBI anyway, and was later lambasted and called a racist.

I have no doubt Sarah Palin would have done as Eunice did, and that Obama had the same low opinion of Eunice as he does of all us bitter-clingers.

I really hate these "hypocracy" argumets. I don't like them applied to Palin by the barracudas of the news media. I also don't like them when applied to Obama. Why must Obama sacrifice his children on the cross of public virtue? Part of working hard and climbing the ladder is that your children can have a better life than you did. Also, I think the kids are more easily shielded from media absurdity if they are in private school.

What a bogus, unrealistic, argument from the Captain. Is it the goal of the media trafficers in outrage to make it utterly impossible for ANYONE with children to run for office?

Reading the NY Times on CAC, I was struck by how hard they tried to avoid saying anything that anyone could get any purchase on. It was as if they were preparing for the future, when they would be called on the carpet to explain their previous behavior: "Oh, CAC? We covered it. Looked ordinary to us."

- No consideration of $8 million overhead,
- No consideration of shakedown by enforced partnership with "approved" second parties
- No consideration of how it may have been used to legitimize special friends like Maoist Michael Klonsky, by paying for their academic credentials
- No consideration of feeding grant money to "legitimate" political activities
- No follow the money
- No review of the projects objectively reported abject failure.

Nope. The Times article shows that Obama was concerned enough about education to serve for years in the company of other prominent citizens equally concerned.

Obama didn't work in the PTA or booster clubs in his neighborhood because it is hard work. We've organized volunteers to shovel an 18-wheeler load of wood chips onto the playground surface then spent two days shoveling. We've smoothed concrete and acted as brick helpers to masons laying brick for marquees. We've built flower beds and taught students and faculty how to care for the beds as part of their science classes. We've worked concessions at professional football games to earn money for scholarships; those days were 10-12 hours without benefit of heat or air.

I could go on and on but bottom line: Obama doesn't have what it takes to be a PTA or booster person.

100% agreement here. The photo sequence is the key - Bomber Bill, Barack, Bomber Bill, Hugo, Bomber Bill, Barack. A detour to Klonsky under a Mao banner wouldn't hurt but I woudn't do it in the first ad.

Did you see that Rev. Wright has been reaching out to whites? One lady in Dallas in particular, seems to have received the benefit of personal ministry. It's a start!

Jorg, that's the point of vouchers--give every kid the amount of money you're paying for failed public schools anyhow and let them go wherever they want with it. I foget what O says his position is now on that. His party has a problem with it because one of their few sure shots is the teacher's union which know they'd have to organize school by school and would probably never get city wide contracts favorable to them as they now get from Dem mayors on their leash.

A policy fight on education is fine. It's the demand that Obama should send his kids to public school (so that they can be hounded by fringe media, receive a crappy education from a school board Obama has never controlled) I find obnoxious. Plus, Obama is far more favorable to charter schools than the average Dem.

*"Choice" does not apply to education or retirement funding. A choice to serve in the military may result in demonization and/or infantilization. Choice of car and thermostat level must be approved by the EU.

MI Gov Granholm will be the Palin Stand-In for Biden to "practice" debating with. Poor guy, I would barf if I had to look at her for too long. Do they really think that Granholm could ever measure up to Palin (looks or otherwise)???

Anyone care to guess who Palin would use as a "Biden" Stand-In/Punching Dummy?

I spent countless countless hours on the board of a private school here--shepherding it from near financial ruin to its place today as the most rigorous school in D.C. I did this in addition to raising my son, managing the household and running my practice. Those were hard, hard years..much harder than being a failed community organizer.

Appalled, I don't mind your exasperation with hypocrisy. It is an indicator, not an explanation. My exasperation is with those who choose to discount the hypocrisy AND the underlying shallowness of the perpetrator.

What a bogus, unrealistic, argument from the Captain. Is it the goal of the media trafficers in outrage to make it utterly impossible for ANYONE with children to run for office?

Posted by: Appalled | September 11, 2008 at 11:38 AM

I would buy this if Obama supported school choice. He doesn't. He is steadfast in his support of denying poor families the same options his economic success has granted his family. Obama wants to keep poor kids locked into failing schools while he sends his to private school. I think that is a fair point to bring up.

Appalled, the "demand" (phrased as a plaintive question) that Obama send his kids to a public school is coming from a Democrat. Republicans are arguing that Obama should help poorer families have the same options his family does.

I do, too, ranger. And for the nine millionth time I remind you all that in that position Obama is engaged in the same hyporcisy as all of his party's leaders who have done exactly the same thing.Including Dellums and Jackson (St. Albans).

It's the demand that Obama should send his kids to public school (so that they can be hounded by fringe media, receive a crappy education from a school board Obama has never controlled) I find obnoxious.

I think Barry (and Gore and all the rest) would find this charge of hypocrisy evaporating were he to truly come out in favor of giving everyone the same choice not to have their kids stuck with a crappy education.
The hypocrite charge against Palin is without merit. The one against Barry has something to it.

I think it's about par for the in-the-tank-for-Obama press. And they ought to be mad, they're getting their collective a@@es kicked. Some of his contentions are a bit shocking, however (e.g., what's "age appropriate" STD instruction for a kindergartner?).

McCain would be foolish to let Obama and allies set the agenda, especially with the nebulous hopey changey nonsense they've been running for the last year and a half. If they want to discuss issues, they can start any time.

Alan the Toad Colmes tried to compare and contrast on HC last night McCain has made the "pig" statement many times. What he failed to mention, but Rove did thankfully, is that no women uttered the word "lipstick" in referring to themselves in the previous 10 days or so before McCain used the same remark.

Obama knew exactly what he was doing and what it meant, and he even laughed when his peons got it. It just goes to show his utter lack of character - again.

Obama wants to keep poor kids locked into failing schools while he sends his to private school.

It's more than that, too. He wants universal pre-K, to continue to make it easier for parents to dump their kids in a failing system at an earlier age.
I think like a PTA mom (waving to bad). I want parents to have to work *for* their kids, with their kids, and give something to get something. It really is the only way to improve schools.

A couple of points, we see the CAC didn't work, and it was the largest single project
that Obama ever rode herd on; yet the Media don't go after him like the went after then
Governor Bush and his education record in Texas. Having had some experience with NCLB,
I find that hasn't given optimum results either; who would have thought a plan crafted by Ted Kennedy, who knew. Ironically, most teachers think it was singlehandedly crafted by Bush with imput from Karl Rove; even Karl isn't that clever.

On a larger point, we're here on the 7th anniversary of September 11th attack with forces in Afghanistan; being much more successful than the British were in a hundred years of that land, and a darn sight better than even their Mesopotamian incursion three quarters of a century ago.
It seems bizarre now, when you have the Governor of our what is our equivalent to
Saudi Arabia or Siberia in terms of energy resources who recognizes the need for confronting the Wahhabi threat, through personal example; who has challenged the oil companies to actually look out for our
own best interests that she has been the subject of such 'political pornography'.
From the Mulray/Cross type insinuations about her family right out of 'ChinaTown',
other examples or rank misogynist, elitist
rumormongering et al.

This begs the question of how did we get here; foreign and even domestic policy play a part. On the foreign side, we gave a gave a blank check to the Wahhabis after 1945; in order to secure their oil supply; the agreement insisted "we could supply them steel, but never interfere with their faith.' That seemed an odd stipulation, considering the British experience in India with the Wahhabis, and even the Ottoman interventions but that was it. They used that oil money to set up the WAMY, World Muslim league, etc directed at who they though were our foes; Nasser, his Yemeni proxies, India and the what they consider the real foe enemy Israel. The lobbies fronted by ex politicos like Fulbright, Dutton, et al concurred on the point. Meanwhile the likes of Perez Alfonso and other Latin and Arab nationalists forged OPEC as a bargaining force (based on
their observations of the staple of American populism; the Texas Railway commission)Similar steps we done stateside to discourage domestic drilling; like eliminating the oil depletion allowance; because we couldn't stand people making money on oil. Hence the 'Seven Sisters' and increasingly independents like Zapata/
Pennzoil, Getty et al went abroad in their
oil ventures.

Then came the merely unfortunate, which became catastrophic Santa Monica oil spill of 1969; which occasioned Esso's namechange to Enron, eventually led to Earth Day. This led to the gradual curtailment of domestic oil production; that the emerging Arab powers like Libya. held in consideration.
So when the next war came in '73, encouraged in part by the Watergate kerfluffle; the US was limited to act, when it did acts limited action, the airlift to Israel, provoked the first oil embargo. This occasioned the petro-dollar windfall that eventually did in Venezuela. unnerved
enough people in order to elect Carter, and
brought the Ilkwan Wahhabis back out of their slumber. With the Siege of the Grand Mosque, being their first audition. This in part was encouraged by the Carter administration acquiescene to the Khomeini
coup over Iran; which would lead to the Iraq card. And the second oil embargo, which sparked the double dip recession of '79-82.

We still didn't learn our lesson apparently, since Executive orders which prohibited any extensive domestic oil recovery were promulgated in this period.
Meanwhile, beginning with Brezinski, but extending to Bechtel men Schultz and Weinberger,the reaction to the Afghan invasion; marginalized those moderate elements of the jihad over the Wahhabi true believers and their sympathizers in the ISI and other institutions. Those in the know like Cannistraro, seemed to stay quiet and block any overview of what Avrakotos and Wilson were doing. Bearden, one of the last
men on that campaign shows little awareness
of who he was dealing with. The Peshawar council is reference in passing, but the more militant members are almost an after thought. His memoir on this period, seems to trade on the British and Russian experiences in Afghanistan; focusing on the 'grave yard of empires' theme; leaves out the formation of AQ.

A policy fight on education is fine. It's the demand that Obama should send his kids to public school

Why not simply acknowledge that public schools in PalinTown are better and safer than public schools in BlueCity. Of course that might interfere with the hick red neck template, after all the idea of that woman in Dick Cheney's power chair is akin to brain rape. Besides hypocrisy with leftests is like racism with african-americans, no such thing.

agree, although I'd rather it not all be coming from a McCain ad. I fear it would be dismissed as guilt by association.

Posted by: MayBee | September 11, 2008 at 11:53 AM

Good point. To really give it punch, a segment should be added that says:

Together they they squandered over $150 Million Dollars on school reform that "Achieved no impact" (cite CAC impact study). Much of that money actually went to political organizing rather than improving schools (cite same study). That's not surprising though, given Bill Ayers view of school reform.

I also think that a 527 should do the same associative ads concerning Palin. Let's see the faces of those PTA moms and Booster Club dads with whom she has consorted for many years. It's only fair and would provide some good contrast with the paid communisty organizers so beloved by Obama.

Pounded into students is the view that America engaged in "totalitarian practices" not unlike the Soviet enemy we decried.

Although the course is entitled the Cold War at Home, you might think the instructor would be inclined to ask who the enemy is, why was the Soviet Union an enemy and what tactics did this nation employ against us. But these issues are not addressed.

Class session after class session was devoted to the drum beat of criticism. I asked my daughter if she read anything about Gus Hall and the American Communist Party or if she ever heard of I.F. Stone or if any time was devoted to the Venona tapes. She looked at me perplexed.

There is only one theme: the U.S. government was wrong; there wasn't any justification for harassing communists and Edward R. Murrow and Victor Navasky are the real heroes in this period.

I don't see McCain dropping an ad on CAC without first laying the groundwork in a debate .. face to face .. mano e mano. It has to be both plainly embarrassing to Obama and shown to a large audience.

I don't think it should be about Obama's accociation with Ayers, but rather about Obama lying to cover it up during the campaign. Remember, it's the coverup that always gets them.

I see .. video of Sarah saying he had no experience .. then he lied, hiding his failure working with Ayers. Then it should be .. the story about Obama kids going to school with Ayers kids .. then show the contrast in their ages.

This age difference one is so clear and obviously a lie that it can be understood by a 3rd grader. It's golden.

Any pure association based commercial will be torn to shreds by the Obama media.

William Ayers and Barack Obama worked together on education reform in Chicago (NYT, September 10th, 2008). Together they they squandered over $150 Million Dollars on school reform that achieved "no measurable impact" (cite CAC impact study).

Much of that money actually went to political organizing rather than improving schools (cite same study). That's not surprising though, given William Ayers view of school reform.

Who is William Ayers? He's an unrepentant domestic terrorist who bombed the Pentagon and brags about it (NYT, September 11th, 2001).

So, what did Barack Obama learn from William Ayers about education reform? Clip of Ayers with Hugo Chavez Education is Revolution!

Are these really the kind of ideas we need in school reform in America? We need school reform that helps out children learn how to read and write, not become revolutionaries.

I think republicans have to take a little responsibility for this. During the Clinton years, we went scandal crazy. Now granted, many of those scandals were true and it occurred over 8 years, not 8 days, but obviously we set a bad example. The children in the Democratic party have learned from our example to look for these scandals. They have learned that impeachment is a viable option. They have twisted it to crazy levels, but I think we should own up to starting some of this. The other side has just taken it to the extreme.

How awesome would it be if McCain made a point and apologized to Clinton?

I just finished reading Isikoff's book about Clinton. After doing so, my response is that there is NO WAY McCain should do this. The impeachment was richly deserved, and should have resulted in a conviction.

I mentioned it earlier on another thread, but I'll mention it again. Boston in the 1970's was in turmoil over forced busing, with kids from Southie being bussed to distant schools for the purpose of satisfying some race-based formula. Teddy Kennedy supported it enthusiastically, all the while sending his kid to St. Albans. Democrats in a nutshell.

It should be prominently mentioned that Ayers is Vice-President for curricular development of an important national education group. That, I think, is the scandal with the greatest reach.
========================================

ranger et al: i don't disagree with your ad but the thrust is wrong. the ads need to address, directly, what the facts tell us about Obama, not, for example, ayers.
first: the deceit, as shown by his response to stephanopolous.
second: his idea of school reform, as shown by the type of projects funded and the abject failure
third: the hypocrisy & elitism, as shown by the fact that although his own kids attend private school, choice is something he refuses to give the rest of us.

The impeachment was richly deserved, and should have resulted in a conviction.

Concur. Clinton's serial philandering is of little concern to me, if he'd just kept it to willing co-participants. But his M.O. when he offended someone was to preemptively destroy their reputations to discredit their (truthful) allegations. It's a pattern that played out with Willey and Jones (and probably Broaddrick and others). It's an abuse of power that makes common sexual harassment look like a child's game, and utterly indefensible.

His latter attempts to suborn perjury were also unacceptable (given they were intrusion on judiciary matters by the Executive), and virtually demanded impeachment proceedings. Mea culpas are fine, but revisionist pretense that there was no "there" there is not.

The 50,000 student Clayton County, GA school system recently became the 2nd U.S. system in 40 years to be stripped of its accreditation The main culprits are a disfunctional school board and superintendent.

"By Thursday afternoon, parents flooded school offices to withdraw their children. Two thousand students have already fled the district this school year and the number is expected to grow. [Superintendent]Thompson said he was disappointed that families were not willing to give the district another chance."

The state is stepping in and seeking stringent new requirements for school board members - a high school diploma and a drug test. :O

ex dem's link to treacher explains one thing that occurred shortly after Palin was nominated.
There were a slew of articles (MoDo comes to mind immediately) and public statements by several lefties referring to Palin's life as a bad movie/TV show compressed into a very tight time frame.
Townhouse lives.

"Former Rhode Island Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee has called vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin a 'cocky wacko' and said her selection as John McCain's running mate has energized supporters of Democrat Barack Obama...He said her speech at the Republican National Convention had the unintended effect of energizing Democrats and Obama supporters."

The former modifies both Senator and Republican. The missing linc is no longer a Republican and was the pitiful guy they trotted out trying to counter the impact of Joe Lieberman backing McCain. Why did they AP think his comment was newsworthy? Oh yeah...

ranger et al: i don't disagree with your ad but the thrust is wrong. the ads need to address, directly, what the facts tell us about Obama, not, for example, ayers.
first: the deceit, as shown by his response to stephanopolous.
second: his idea of school reform, as shown by the type of projects funded and the abject failure
third: the hypocrisy & elitism, as shown by the fact that although his own kids attend private school, choice is something he refuses to give the rest of us.

Posted by: ex-democrat | September 11, 2008 at 12:47 PM

That's fair enough. I think this is part of a broader attack though. For example, along with the School Reform? type ad, there should also be a spot on integrity. Some thing like:

How much can we trust Barack Obama? Does he tell the truth? Does he keep his promisses?

When Barack Obama was asked about his relationship with William Ayers his response was (clip) "This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood..."

No, Senator Obama, this is not just a guy who lives in your neighborhood. This is a guy who you worked with for 5 years on a failed school reform project.

This is a guy who hosted the launch of your political carreer in his living room.

Barack Obama promissed to take public funding for his campaign, then he opted out of the public financing system.

Barack Obama promissed the Democratic National Committee would not ask for or accept "soft money", then his campaign asked for soft money to bail the Democratic National Convention out of debt.

But that's just politics as usual.

On a personal level, Barack Obama promissed to help a school named after him in Kenya. But no help ever arrived. Now Republicans have stepped up to organize the help that Barack Obama promissed, but never delivered.

When did the press hound the children of politicians? Not in my memory. And why would a private school afford more privacy than a public school? A public school principal has to allow the press access? I don't think so.

Contrast the privacy of politicians children, then and now. Chelsea Clinton was in the White House from age 12 to 20. I'm not exactly a political junkie but I don't remember seeing anything about CC's love life. So why all the press interest in Palin's kids? If the press's actions today had been active then do you think America would have been okay with press speculation regarding who CC is sleeping with and whether she's had an abortion?

Did anyone read that Time Magazine article, linked at Hot Air. (I'm not bothering to link it because it is trash). I can't believe how the biased media constantly states opinion as fact. It's offensive as hell.

I disagree. Ex-dem is making a proper argument if the facts are available. In a legal process they would be available through deposition or other means of discovery but in the current instance they are not.

We do not know who proposed Obama for inclusion on the CAC board nor, to my knowledge, do we know who proposed him as President of the Board of Directors, a position for which he possessed no discernible qualification.

Pending disclosure of the actual facts, we are free to speculate upon his association with the person who wrote the grant application, who was in charge of the "nuts and bolts" of the operation and who organized and led the successor to CAC.

Your current proposed ad is find but I would never drop an ad associating Obama with the terrorist Ayers. Obama has only denounced the acts committed by Ayers, never the terrorist scum himself.

So ... when are serious researchers going to make the connection between LSD/marijuana use and the side effects of psychosis, cognitive dissonance, and hallucinations ..... and today's liberals, many of whom either were or are currently serious drug users in the 1960's and 1970's?

It's the demand that Obama should send his kids to public school (so that they can be hounded by fringe media, receive a crappy education from a school board Obama has never controlled) I find obnoxious. Plus, Obama is far more favorable to charter schools than the average Dem.

Appalled is right here. I don't like the tactics either and I must confess that I used this line of argument myself. I regret the error.

The only point within this frame that has real value to me is questions posed to Obama asking him how he came to send his children to the UoC Lab school. For example, why did he choose a private school? Why did he not choose the local public school?

Most people do not know that Obama has at least made statements on the stump about supporting charter schools as well as merit pay.

This is the mystical element to his character that initially attracted me to want to know more about him. He will talk about support for initiatives that are highly unusual for an elected national Democrat to make. However, as he continues, inevitably he sees the power of government as bank to provide funds for all sorts of causes that he expresses strong sentiment that the market can correct.

This all really derives from the fact that Barack Obama really is a college professor more than he is a politician. I'd rather have him making the case for change from the ranks of tenure, than from the White House.

Perhaps it is less about choice for poor families than to be sure they won't end up in his children's school. Not that he's elite or anything.

Reminds me of what a former neighbor said about her community having some of the finest public schools in the state, but when asked why she sent her children to private school, answered, "to keep them from being influenced by the riff raff, of course."

The 'guilt by association' defense doesn't work. If it did, Trent Lott (among many others) would still be on stage. I don't believe that associations should be the main thrust at all, Obama's lack of judgement and experience coupled with his attachment to failed tax and spend policies should be at the top. His associations with Wright, Ayers and Rezko are garnishes on the edge of a dish which should have his inability to distinguish between defeat and victory heaped right in the center.

If your community attracts the attention of an organizer, your community already has problems far beyond the ability of an organizer to solve. In fact, if he did solve them, he'd be out of a job...or running for office. Does community organizing make sense, now?

Gramsci, Alinsky and Ayers; none of these had the best interests of Americans, of ANY race, color or creed, in mind...why would their disciples, HRC and BHO?

[the] value to me is questions posed to Obama asking him how he came to send his children to the UoC Lab school

Okay but as soon as the subject comes up any discussion appears to be based on hypocrisy. If it were only about hypocrisy then okay, but it isn't. If you don't want to discuss that aspect of it, that's okay but it certainly appears to me that some are trying to use the hypocrisy component as a reason to avoid the discussion entirely.

This is the mystical element to his character that initially attracted me to want to know more about him. He will talk about support for initiatives that are highly unusual for an elected national Democrat to make. However, as he continues, inevitably he sees the power of government as bank to provide funds for all sorts of causes that he expresses strong sentiment that the market can correct.

Good stuff.
I have long had trouble figuring out how Obama plans to reconcile his seemingly competing positions. There is almost nothing he hasn't said, that I can think of. He wants us to understand it is his judgment that will make it all work out.

That's why I want the CAC stuff to come to light. He simply doesn't have a history of making his judgment work.

He will talk about support for initiatives that are highly unusual for an elected national Democrat to make.

Good observation, Gabriel. But as you say, after thoughtful, professorial deliberation he invariably regresses to the "hey, let's have the government do it!" mean. So my cynical nature takes over and I have to dismiss this type of support as nothing more than a strategic/rhetorical ploy.

rick - not sure we disagree much (if at all) but all i'm trying to say is that the ready, aim, shoot approach is to decide first what negative the facts clearly establish(for example, poor judgment), and then avoid the temptation to muddy that message by getting too ambitious.

Respecting Treacher's wonderful post noting Axelrod's other business which specializes in astroturfing--I recall a blog a few days ago tracing some O astroturfing to O's Fight the Smears site..Does anyone recall that or similar proof that O's team was engaged in that?

I'm with you on the decriminalization and medical use aspect. However, I lumped them together in this case because there are serious indications that both do indeed contribute to the manifestation of psychosis, and I personally wonder if there might be a connection between that and some of the pychosis we seem to be seeing from many liberals today.

Perhaps it's a stretch, but one I think is worthy of some exploration.